[[Masterson & Wright]] was the petition drive management company hired to collect these signatures. They were paid $2,558,146.67 for this service.<ref>[http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1278256&session=2005&view=expenditures ''Cal-Access'', "Expenditures of the Yes on 86 committee"]</ref>

[[Masterson & Wright]] was the petition drive management company hired to collect these signatures. They were paid $2,558,146.67 for this service.<ref>[http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1278256&session=2005&view=expenditures ''Cal-Access'', "Expenditures of the Yes on 86 committee"]</ref>

Fiscal impact

Increase in new state tobacco excise tax revenues of about $2.1 billion annually by 2007–08, declining slightly annually thereafter. Those revenues would be spent for various health programs, children’s health coverage, and tobacco-related programs.

Unknown net state costs potentially exceeding $100 million annually after a few years due to provisions simplifying state health program enrollment rules and creating a new pilot program for children’s health coverage.

Unknown, but potentially significant, savings to the state Medi-Cal Program and counties from a shift of children from other health care coverage to the Healthy Families Program (HFP); potential state costs that could be significant in the long term for ongoing support of expanded HFP enrollment.

Unknown, but potentially significant, savings in state and local government public health care costs over time due to various factors, including an expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products.

Arguments in favor

According to the California Department of Health Services, Proposition 86 will "prevent nearly 180,000 deaths due to smoking among California kids now under the age of 17" and "prevent approximately 120,000 additional deaths due to smoking among current California adult smokers who quit smoking."

The Proposition 86 tax increase will "prevent more than 700,000 kids now under the age of 17 from becoming adult smokers" and "120,000 high school students and 30,000 middle school students would either quit or not start smoking."

"More than half a million smokers in California would quit smoking."

"Californians would consume 312 million fewer packs of cigarettes each year."

Because of these declines in the rate of smoking, "nearly $16.5 billion [would be] saved in healthcare costs."

State revenues would be increased "by over $2.2 billion per year."

Donors

$16,607,128 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition 86.[1]

Arguments against

"We all want to improve our healthcare system, but Proposition 86 is the wrong solution. Prop. 86 is an unfair tax increase supported by special interests who are amending our Constitution to benefit themselves."

"Prop. 86’s proponents say it’s about encouraging people not to smoke, but it isn’t. It’s really a money grab by huge hospital corporations who will reap hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year!"

"The largest share—almost 40%—goes to hospitals, many of which are funding the campaign for the new tax."

"HMOs will pocket millions from Prop. 86."

"Hospitals wrote Prop. 86 to give themselves an exemption to antitrust laws, giving them legal protection to divvy up and limit many medical services, and then raise prices without worrying about competition."

"Prop. 86 contains 38 pages of spending mandates. But experts agree that the amount of money raised by this tobacco tax will decline over time. Declining revenues and demands to fund Prop. 86’s programs will only worsen our deficit. Other important programs like education, transportation, and law enforcement might have to be cut, or taxes raised further."

"Law enforcement groups oppose Prop. 86 because it will increase crime and smuggling. Stolen and smuggled cigarettes are already a big source of money for gangs and organized crime. If Prop. 86 passes, a single truckload of stolen cigarettes could be worth over $2 million to criminals."

"Prop. 86 taxes smokers to pay for programs that have nothing to do with smoking, like obesity programs. Less than 10% of the tax revenues go toward helping smokers quit or keeping kids from starting."

"Proposition 86 amends our Constitution and statutes. When problems and abuses are discovered, it will be nearly impossible for the Governor or the Legislature to fix them. The Constitution should not be changed for a special interest money-grab."

Donors

$66,682,899 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "no" vote on Proposition 86.[2]